New Column from Beyer

[tiggerv]

Latest article from Andrew Beyer. Apologies if this was already posted.

"Yet despite the evidence that the U.S. medication policy has been a failure, horsemen have regularly resisted most efforts to curb the use of medications. American racing is addicted to drugs, and American horses will never again be fueled by hay, oats and water alone. But until the industry faces the medication issue seriously, all of its efforts to address equine safety will be misguided."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051102197.html

[sumitas]

We have come face to face with the enemy. And it is us.

[sumitas]

The racing establishment. Horse racing people as a whole for allowing this to happen. I wish I could do more too.

[cmorioles]

One of his best recently. I'd vote him racing commissioner in a second if there was such and thing.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by sumitas

We have come face to face with the enemy. And it is us.

I agree with Beyer's article...meds and breeding are the main problems and changing breeding practices directly is impossible (although the argument that going to poly everywhere would impact breeding is interesting). The whip is more cosmetic but I think it could also be examined. While I seriously doubt that anything could have prevented the tragic breakdown of Eight Belles, perhaps the fallout...especially from INSIDE the racing industry might finally produce some meaningful changes...??

[philcski]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

One of his best recently. I'd vote him racing commissioner in a second if there was such and thing.

Co-chair with Crist... we might actually make some progress in this game if that actually happened

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree with Beyer's article...meds and breeding are the main problems and changing breeding practices directly is impossible (although the argument that going to poly everywhere would impact breeding is interesting). The whip is more cosmetic but I think it could also be examined. While I seriously doubt that anything could have prevented the tragic breakdown of Eight Belles, perhaps the fallout...especially from INSIDE the racing industry might finally produce some meaningful changes...??

Yes, the stallions would object.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I'd love to hear responses from people who disagree with you on this one, meaning the hiring of a media type who might not have ever owned or trained a horse, in addition to never having worked in racetrack management, or for an auction company, or for a gate/maintenance crew, or as a vet.

He has, however, bet on horses.

I agree. A good column, but a racing commissioner, I think not.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by zippyneedsawin

Yes, the stallions would object.

LOL Zippy, although they might enjoy longer, more meaningful relationships rather than "wham, bam, thank you Mam"...LOL!

[Better Than Honour]

He is 100% correct. It would only be fitting if Dutrow were to win the Triple Crown in a tarnished error of horse racing. Just like Bonds being the HR leader.

Lesson: The trainers with the best veterinarian are the winners.

[10 pnt move up]

Articles like these are more frustrating than informative for just about everyone who bets and follows the sport...we all know what the problem is and it has nothing to do with running on rubber or dirt.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

"The drawback to this vision, of course, is that horse racing might not be much of a sport if speed became a liability. The thoroughbreds who make the game exciting are the brilliant ones such as Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown -- not the plodders who often win on Polytrack."


So, if he had the money to buy horses, then he probably would be buying the same speed-bred horses that are most vulnerable to breaking down. These "plodders" (he and other speed addicts hate) will keep kickin' the ass of the speed-bred Derby winners trying to get home in the Belmont. They can try to speed up the track all they want come Belmont day, but you can't make those turns tight. The beauty of the Triple Crown is it requires a horse to do very different things. Winning the Derby on concrete is much different than winning the Belmont. As long as people ( like Beyer) keep thinking the "brilliant ones" in the sport are just the ones with speed,then horses will continue to be bred for speed. As long as his pro-speed attitude exists, horses will be bred in a way that results in them being more and more fragile. His own addiction to speed is part of the reason these horses break down so easily. You can't say speed is brilliant, and then turn right around and complain that they breed for it. That would be hypocritical.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I think that he is referring to horses like Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Spectacular Bid. All had brilliant speed.

No, he referred to Big Brown (precisely.) We are gunna find out if his example of brilliance can get 12f. If he can get 12f, then he belongs with those you mentioned. Problem with his attitude is that he has given a horse the description of " brilliant " without it being fully tested for endurance. He has won all 3 of his races this year on speed-favoring dirt tracks. The breed would be much better off if people valued the ability to get 12f. I think it does require brilliance to get all 3 legs of the triple crown. The reason we haven't had one in 30 years has a lot to do with these speed addicts that call a 3 year old "brilliant" before being tested for true endurance. Having speed is fine if it can be taken 12f.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I think the breed itself is the main problem. The breeding for speed has resulted in fast horses that are more fragile, and struggle to get the 12f distance necessary to win the Triple Crown. His attitude (Big Brown is already brilliant) shows the lack of respect for true endurance that is so prevalent with speed addicts. Medication allows people to disconnect the warning lights, but the problem is in the breeding. If we could run the Belmont before the other 2 legs, then the breed would be much better off.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

No, he referred to Big Brown (precisely.) We are gunna find out if his example of brilliance can get 12f. If he can get 12f, then he belongs with those you mentioned. Problem with his attitude is that he has given a horse the description of " brilliant " without it being fully tested for endurance. He has won all 3 of his races this year on speed-favoring dirt tracks. The breed would be much better off if people valued the ability to get 12f. I think it does require brilliance to get all 3 legs of the triple crown. The reason we haven't had one in 30 years has a lot to do with these speed addicts that call a 3 year old "brilliant" before being tested for true endurance. Having speed is fine if it can be taken 12f.

In no way do I disagree with your statement that the breed would be better off with people valuing stamina, but the CD track on Derby Day was definitely not favoring speed.

[King Glorious]

I don't understand those that say we should breed more horses that are going to appreciate 12f when there are no dirt races outside of the Belmont for them to run in. Well, they added some this year but for years, after they cut the JCGC down to 10f, where was there any incentive for breeders to try to breed 12f horses? There has been none. The vast majority of races in this country, whether on real dirt, grass or synthetic, are run under 8f. With that in mind, why would anyone breed a horse for a distance that they are only eligible for one time in their career unless they run on the grass?

[TheSpyder]

Lets see. On one side you have a disjointed group of owners, trainers, and state run race tracks. On the other you have pharmacitical giants ready and willing to invest what ever it takes to get into markets, lobby government and influential people, and buy their way in to any market they want.

I think it's hopeless.

Spyder
Advil Sinus Junkee

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I don't understand those that say we should breed more horses that are going to appreciate 12f when there are no dirt races outside of the Belmont for them to run in. Well, they added some this year but for years, after they cut the JCGC down to 10f, where was there any incentive for breeders to try to breed 12f horses? There has been none. The vast majority of races in this country, whether on real dirt, grass or synthetic, are run under 8f. With that in mind, why would anyone breed a horse for a distance that they are only eligible for one time in their career unless they run on the grass?

I guess when they get tired enough of seeing horses(bred for speed) being put in horse ambulances. They aren't tired of it yet( "just part of the game..nobody is to blame.") Well,also if they want a triple crown winner, then they need to start breeding for all 3 legs (instead of just the 1st two.)

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by philcski

In no way do I disagree with your statement that the breed would be better off with people valuing stamina, but the CD track on Derby Day was definitely not favoring speed.

I disagree, and I think the fairest track (of the three) is usually Belmont. I think Churchill wants no more Giacomos. Their "tight" tracks on big days means it's very difficult to get the same winner of both the Kentucky Derby, and the Belmont. If you look at these races run at Belmont(lately,) you're going to see horses earning their wins in the stretch. They must be able to finish up. I think it's the best dirt track in the country,and I would play it if they didn't have the New York breds in the 6th / 9th races. That's like putting orange juice in beer.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

I disagree,and I think the fairest track (of the three) is usually Belmont.I think Churchill wants no more Giacomos. Their "tight" tracks on big days means it's very difficult to get the same winner of both the Kentucky Derby,and the Belmont.

Scuds, your use of punctuation and the space bar is much appreciated

or are you dictating posts to someone?